Skip to main content

Let the monsters kill each other.

Game of Thrones
Season Seven

(SPOILERS) Column inches devoted to Game of Thrones, even in “respectable” publications, seems to increase exponentially with each new season, so may well reach critical mass with the final run. Groundswells of opinion duly become more evident, and as happens with many a show by somewhere around this point, if not a couple of years prior, Season Seven has seen many of the faithful turn on once hallowed storytelling, and at least in part, there’s good reason for that.


Some suggest the show has jumped the shark (or crashed the Wall); there were concerns over how much the pace increased last year, divested as it was of George RR Martin’s novels as a direct source, but this year’s succession of events make Six seem positively sluggish. I don’t think GoT has suddenly, resoundingly, lost it, and I’d argue there did need to be an increase in momentum (people are quick to forget how much moaning went on about seemingly nothing happening for long stretches of previous seasons), but there has definitely been a fallout from losing the guiderail of the books; characterisation and incident have become increasingly cursory, at times resembling a shopping list of scenes and encounters that need ticking off, and with that comes a problem the series hasn’t faced before: an unwillingness to suspend disbelief.


This season, people seem to get around the map in no time at all; the once vast and unknowable lands now seem so much smaller and less challenging. Much-anticipated encounters occur without any the expected impact. In some cases, this has been a positive (the various Starks): in others, underwhelming (neither Jon nor Daenerys are portrayed by strong enough actors to achieve much in the way of a spark during one-on-one in scenes, making their carnal attraction distinctly devoid of chemistry and thus leaving only the promise of incest to titillate). In yet others, it all becomes a bit silly, such as 7.6: Beyond the Wall’s travelogue where each character is duly given a “Now it’s my turn” chance to interact with another; the results entirely lack finesse.


Beyond the Wall has been the big sticking point, the one where the confluence of unlikely/ unbelievable events just became a bit too much. Daenerys miraculously flying to the rescue in time on her dragon, Jon arbitrarily acting a tool just to create the conditions for death (a dragon) and rescue (Uncle Benjen). Added to which, Daenerys was convinced remarkably easily that the scheme to capture a wight had merit. I didn’t particularly have a problem with the question of what the Night King would have done if he hadn’t laid his lily-white hands on a dragon (well, it would just have taken a bit longer, wouldn’t it?) but I did find the Benjen-ex machina irritating in the extreme. Bad enough that they did that, worse still that they pulled the old “Ride away while I fend the wights off for absolutely no good reason other than the writers wouldn’t know what to do with me if I stayed”. As for the “Kill the White Walker and his creations all die”, well, I guess if it was good enough for George Lucas in The Phantom Menace


I don’t have many complaints about the contrivance of the Sansa-Anya plot. I mean, that’s the way these devices work. It’s not as if there wasn’t/isn’t a genuine undercurrent and tension between the sisters. And it was just plain satisfying to see Littlefinger finally bow out/bleed out. Part of the problem of his exit, though, is that it further contributes to tapestry becoming so much more streamlined in a show built on intrigue and suspect loyalties. The only real tension in that respect has come from Cersei, and as such, The Dragon and the Wolf’s double-crossing (leading to Jaime riding out) was much needed, as was the more subdued pace in the first half of the episode (it felt as if the show knew how to breathe deeply again).


There are still question marks, such as the ramifications of the revelation regarding Jon, as and when its revealed to all – the scene between Samwell and Bran is another example of chronically indelicate exposition. Samwell rolls up, leaving the Citadel mainly because the plot requires it, and the first person he sees is Bran, leading to a highly deductive conversation. When things seem to unfold too effortlessly, it’s a sure sign the writers are no longer building stories but attempting to juggle the elements so as to make it to the finish line – but mostly what remains feels like a case of how and when rather than nursing the element of surprise.


Sometimes, the now rudimentary writing David Benioff and DB Weiss works to the show’s favour; Euron bolting it because he’s scared shitless immediately seemed like yet another dose of poor characterisation as a means to an end, so to find it was a ruse was at least gratifying. In contrast, the scene of Theon’s miraculous cocklessness seeing him to victory/redemption in a fight on the beach at Dragonstone with someone twice as fierce and twice his size was never less than ridiculous, and one of the weaker instances of plotting/writing/motivation the show has seen. The season has had a few of those, though, including Jon calling Daenerys “Dani” for no explicable reason whatsoever and Brienne exclaiming “Fuck loyalty” because everything she held to be sacrosanct has apparently been shattered at the sight of the undead.


Before Jon and Daenerys got it on, there seemed to be moves in terms of the latter’s budding despotism to suggest she might not be all that (despite being the great white saviour of previous seasons), and it will be a shame if that’s cast aside. About the only interesting aspect of the character is her hubristic assumption of rectitude (the silliness of accusing Jon of pride in not swearing fealty when she is nursing the same sin only goes unnoticed because Snow is a bit thick, like). The consequence of this plotline is that both Tyrion and Varys, formerly two of the show’s best characters, are now reduced to table leavings (the latter has a strong scene in which Daenerys questions his loyalty, but that’s basically it).


But GoT rattled along during these seven episodes, and I was never remotely bored (as I very occasionally have been in the past). No, it’s no longer “prestige” TV, it’s become blockbuster cinema on the small screen, with all the problems and insecurities of plotting, internal logic and motivation that brings. The season has had its gems of scenes (Diana Rigg’s death), but the kind of intimate flourishes that yielded tension through dialogue and thespian showmanship are mostly a thing of the past. Or, when they’re not (Cersei, Tyrion), there’s a sense that you’re only seeing the regurgitation of earlier, better-delivered passages on the same theme.


Can Season Eight regain something of the elegance of past form? I have a feeling, if anything, it will only become more linear. Will Game of Thrones end up regarded in a similar fashion to Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The X-Files, where the first four or five seasons are held up as an example of greatness before the rot set in? Perhaps that’s the inevitability of a success story, that the makers begin to become too conscious of what they’ve achieved and are no longer so steady on the tiller. Alternatively, just blame Martin for not pulling his finger out and getting the books finished, the lazy bugger.


(Possible SPOILERS for Season Eight - who knows) Inevitably, there’s much speculation about what will transpire during the final furlong, the most bizarre being that Bran will be revealed as the Night King. I guess it could happen… George RR Martin by way of Damon Lindelof. There was a form of time travel with Hodor, after all. Isaac Hempstead Wright doesn’t seem to think so, though. Jamie killing Cersei seems way too obvious, but then I thought Jon and “Dani” getting together seemed way too obvious. Arya killing Cersei would be predictable too, not least because she’s been going on about it forever. I can certainly see Jon having to sacrifice Daenerys (as the Prince Who Was Promise); there’s no way these two get a happy ending together. Of course, you could reverse those roles (although, Jon dying again?) I can also see the increasingly uncomfortable Tyrion parting ways with his queen (but having him revealed as another Targaryen feels a little too fan service-y). One thing ought to be odds-on, though. Unless the Weiss and Beniof have got cold feet, since that element was definitely in short supply in Seven, lots of cherished people will die.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for